n«p;//www.uspio.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.
form PTC)-850-(Rev.
OMO-2001)
INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
^1 ..;t ViCount* I
I
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Intefferences: j,; r r :*
i
An interference is proposed involving the followinq 2^ oartles
PARTY
C5i^+t2(r C3J.
APPLICATION NO. ,
'1 RUNG DATE
i
PATENT NO, IF any
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
1
tf the involved case ts a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet
Proposed priority beneftt (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): ji
COUNTRY
APPUCATION NO.
mUNG DATE
patent no., if any
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY j
USA
12-/^ ("^^
6/^6p/o( 1
USA
—
The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: CJj.C^^ (02 1
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CI.AIMS ^( |
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS jl
— ;i
The claim(s)ofthls party NOT corresponding to this count: Cf^ \03 {\0 \[\ 1^3 ^3Z i33 l3<=t [AO
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
1 J- . ,i
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS jj
PARTY C^'^SOkv "X"^
APPLICATION NO. ^
'Filing date
PATENT NO., IF ANY \
ISSUE DATE. F ANY
If the invoked case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes X No _ Not due yet ^fsjoZ 3 yr -Pe-e pa,' dl
Proposed pnority benefit (list all intervening appttcattons necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPUCATION NO.
RUNG date
PATENT NO,. IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 1
The daim(s)ofthts party coaesponding to this count: ^ S ' i^-^K^ Q.'Z^2J^
1 of 2
11/5/02 10:58 AM
I inp://>vww. uspto.gov/web/otfices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.ht
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLWMS |
olU i
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claini(s) of this party NOT correspoading to this count: 4" 1 3 ^ 2 I
PATENTED OR PATENT/\BLE PENDING CLAflVlS \
.™ „ — — j
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAU^
(Checkdffeach step, if appifCabie) INSTRUCTIONS
* 1 . Obtain all files ttsted above.
• 2. Confirm thai the proposed involved daims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired
for. among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970).
* 3. If one of the involved files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
♦ 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (27 CFR 1 .55(a)).
• 5, Discuss the proposed interference vwith an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center.
DATE
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature)
ART UNIT
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO.
TELEPHONE NO.
Page ^ of ^
2of2
10:68 AM
nnp;//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850,ht
N
Form PTO-e50-<Rev.
01-10-2001)
i INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
i " ' ' ^ J • (Sdunt U \
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences I • . . • ! L R t \ i C E S
An interference is proposed involving the following parties
PARTY <l6€MS<W IT)
APPUCATION NO,
/
1 RUNG DATE
\ PATENT NO.. IF ANY
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
If the invohred case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet
Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
I APPUCATION NO.
I
FILING DATE
j PATENT NO.. IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 1
USA
-
—
The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: ^2yN a '9 Ciw yi t ^, . .
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLABWIS _ fi
r — ' t ■ t T
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The daim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: --^ 2_ ^3 -^-^ AF\ 3T) 5^2 "SS^ 5"? G7
PATENTED OR PATENTABl^ PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
PARTY (genSO^ liS:)
Benson, et-oi. j
APPLICATION NO. |
1. — „ , I
FIUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY j
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
If the involved case ts a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due vet
Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPLICATION NO.
FIUNG DATE j
PATENT NO., IF ANY j
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY \
U5A
i
I
j
1
1
I of 2
11/5/02 10:58 AM
nnp;//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850>
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
^(|
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claim(s) of this parly NOT corresponding to this count: j-^j |^ jg 2. I 2-3 -2G 2S 33
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
— ■ — „^ , •
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAft4S
(Check off each step, ifappftcable) INSTRUCTIONS
• 1. Obtain all files listed above.
• 2. Connrm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired \
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970).
• 3. If one of the invoUed files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance writh 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
• 4. Obtain a cerftTied copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 ,55(a)).
• 5. Discuss the proposed interference with an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center.
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) j
ART UNIT
TELEPHONE NO.
Sc6- 38-37
DATE 1
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO.
Page 2> pf ^ |
ntip.//v/vvw.uspio.gov/web/orfices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.htj
Form PTO-85(HRev.
01-10-2001)
1 INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
1
I - ■
- : ' : i • 'Count #
^ ' — : : — rr-rrrr-ZTTTz—c
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences I - - ■ * - -
An interference is proposed involvina the foltowina 2- parties —
PARTY
APPLICATION NO.
CR/411 zoS*
/RUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
H iKo immhtad ca«A is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due vet
Proposed priority benertt Ofst all intervening applications rtecessafy for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPUCATION NO.
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO.. F ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
USA
0/2.(0/01
USA
.iZfe/^^.. _
USA
a/(3/qs
The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: I 03 lO*^ 12-3 l3 2- (33
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS j
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The c*aim(s)ofthis party NOT corresponding to this count q^^qg* <^S^{OZ lOS '^^^ 1^4 — I3(^ J — f-^-S
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
PARTY (;Ben&or» ^)
APPUCATION NO.
FlUNG DATE
PATENT NO.. IF ANY j
\
;
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
i2./\f<=iS
the tnvohmi case ts a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes X No Not due yet ^/'^/oT. 3*/2- yf ^tCjC pOJLci
Proposed priority benefit (Itst all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 1
COUNTRY
APPUCATION NO,
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO., F ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
t
j
i
i
1
i
The clatm(£) of this piarty corresponding to this count: v • > ; ' f .^: : _| ^
1 of2
11/5/02 10:56 AM
ntip:/ywww,uspto.gov/web/offices/dcofn/bpai/PTO-850.hti
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: I— 3 5 ^2- i*S*
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
(Check off each step. If applicable) INSTRUCTIONS
• 1 . Obtain all files listed above.
• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved clainis are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired
for. among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970).
• 3. If one of the involved files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
« 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 ^(a)).
• S. Discuss the proposed Interference with an Interference Practk:e Specialist in your Technology Center.
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature)
ART UNIT
TELEPHONE NO.
DATE
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO.
Page 3 of Co
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING OAIMS
>of2
11/5/62 10:68 AM
ncip;//www,uspio.Qov/weo/ontces/dconrvDpai/P rO-d50.htm
Form PTO.fiS0-(Rev. j
01-10-2001) 1
INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
i
1 •■"'r. n r* .i. ; —
■ i n 1 ^rr~
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: ...
An interference is proposed involving the following 2. parties —
PARTY C2^COv-i ^)
— !
APPLICATION NO. i
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO.. IF ANY |
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
j
If the involved case is a patent, have rts maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet
Proposed priority benefit (list alt intenrening applications necessary for continuity) :
COUNTRY j
APPUCATJON NO. |
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, FAhfY
USA
1/31 /-St
1 1
!
i
!
i
i
1
., -i
— — i
1
1
!
!
The claim(s) Of this party corresponding to this count: -4^2 ^ ^3 ^ ^1 ^ 4^ ,5^0 ^ ^
PATENTED OR PATENTABl£ PENDING CLAIMS ^ ^
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The daim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: 30-32 3^-44 ^"^^"^^ — 4-t> ^ ^ 1 6? S8-Co(p?^ GS'^Co^
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
PARTY (^B^nson lEt)
APPUCATK3N NO.
FILING DATE
PATENT NO.. IF ANY
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
H tho involved case is a patent, have Rs maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet
Proposed priority benefil (list all Intervening applications necessary for continuity) :
COUNTRY
APPUCATWN NO.
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
USA
OM xirA- (dCH,
USA
■ ■ ' . '■
■ . . ......
The daim(s)ofthis party corresponding to this count: 4. |^ |g^^ 2-0 21 2S ^ 3^
1 of 2
http://vvvvw,uspto,gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.ht
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
aJl
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claiin(8) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: ^"SjS-^S^^S"*'?- !*={ 22- -^2^ 2^ ' 2>7- 3*^ ^
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
(Check off each step, ifappiicable) INSTRUCTIONS
• 1. Obtain all files listed above.
• 2. Conftmi that the proposed invoh^ed claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired 1
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2S70).
• 3. If one of the invo^ed files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
• 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1.55(a)),
• 5. Discuss the proposed interference wHh an Interference Practice Spectaltst in your Technology Center.
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature)
^^^^^^^^ K^(3^
ART UNIT
TELEPHONE NO.
3<^s -38-37
DATE
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIAUST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO.
^'=>&~ mbo 1
Page 4" of (p jj
ntip://www.uspio.gov/web/oTfices/dcorn/bpai/PTO-ebO,htrri
r-. r- - « ^
FormPTO-850-<Rev.
01-10-2001)
INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
.-- - '
■ s^Sunt^iiSt:./
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: . JJ^EriCcS
An interference is proposed involving the following ^ parties—
PARTY
APPLICATION NO.
FILING DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
I
— - - — i
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
If the involved case is a patent, have rts maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Notdueyel
Proposed priority benefrt (lis! a*I inlervening applications necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPUCATKJN NO.
HLING DATE |
PATENT NO., IF ANY |
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
USA
[-2-1
U(2j(oIo\
US A
±7^^/?^ J
USA
j
The ciaim<s) of this party corresponding to this count: \{0 , (11,1 3*^ ^ f40
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS [ [ |
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The ciaim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: C^^ ^ \ qC{ \ V 2 — l3 S ^ I — 1'4S J
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CUUMS
PARTY (^jeinSO^ ^)
APPLICATION NO.
OBfS<^^ S((
FlUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
If the involved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes _X_ No Not due yet , -4/S/o2- 2>Yz y r. tc(
Proposed priority benefit (fist alt intervening applications necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPLICATION NO.
RUNG DATE
PATENT NO.. IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
The daim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: ^ 2\
1 of2
11/5/02 10:68 AM
niip;//www.uspio.gov/weD/oiMt;eii/uc;ufii/upaur i u-oaujuiit
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS j
1
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The cteim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count; ( — I ^ Z 2 " 2J^
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
1
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
(Check off each step, ffappticabfe) INSTRUCTIONS
• 1. Obtain all files listed above.
• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970).
• 3. If one of the involved files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
• 4, Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents vwhere necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)).
• 5. Discuss the proposed interference with an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center.
DATE
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature)
I ARTUNPT
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO,
TELEPHONE NO.
Page of (p
2of2
11/5/Q2 10:58 AM
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.htr
Form PTO-850-(Rev.
01-10-2001)
INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM
; /l^ Ail jbbuJtfi?; 3
To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: . £ n EN C £ S
An Interference is proposed involvina the followina ^ parties —
PARTY CS>4i^SO^ jr)
j APPLICATION NO.
i CR/(G>4-630(b
j RUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE, IF ANY
If thn mwnh/ml r^se is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet
Proposed priority beneOt (list alt intervening applications necessary for continuity):
COUNTRY
APPLICATION NO.
FlUNG DATE
PATENT NO., IF ANY
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
USA
5Sr^ZSI
!
i
1
j
- - i
i
The c»atm(s) of this party con^esponding to this count: ^3
PATErfTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS ^ ^ | \
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claim<s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count : 2>0-'S\ G -
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
PARTf (^6eVASD\a HE)
APPLICATION NO.
FlUNG DATE !
PATENT NO., IF ANY
:
c
_ t
ISSUE DATE. IF ANY
If the involved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due vet
Proposed priority t>eneftt (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity):
1
CXWNTRY i
I
APPLICATION NO. |
FttJNG DATE
PATENT NO.. \fPm
ISSUE DATE, F ANY ;
USA
USK j
The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: 2-3
nnp;//www.uspio.gov/weD/onices/acomyDpaiyKi 0-6o0.nim
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
The claim(s) of Ihis party NOT corresponding to this count: j — Z2. ^ 2^S^S3
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
~ a.ii
UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS
(Check on each step, if applicabie) INSTRUCTIONS
• 1 . Obtain at! files listed above.
• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired |
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970).
• 3. If one of the invoked files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 13S(b),
• 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)).
• 5. Discuss the proposed Interference wHh an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technotogy Center.
DATE
PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature)
ART UNIT
TELEPHONE NO.
DATE
INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIAUST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature)
TELEPHONE NO.
Paoe of
2 Of 2
11/5/02 10:58 AM
Serial No. 09/411,205
Art Unit 2125
-page 1 -
Interference Hxxxxxx
1. Count 1: Claim 1 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. m).
2. Count 2: Claim 4 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI).
3. Count 3: Claim 23 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. III).
Differences between the counts:
Count 2 depends from Count 1 , but the specific security control elements, and processing in response thereto,
of Count 2 would not have been obvious over the presence of generic control elements in the method of Count 1.
Count 3 is separate from Count 1, because the comparing of multiple data packages for matching elements
in order to control processor execution of Count 3 would not have been obvious over using control elements to control
access to data objects as in the method of Count 1 .
Means plus function analysis:
No means plus function language has been used.
Correlation of claims in SN 09/32U86 (Benson et al. HI), SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al, H), PN 5845281
(Benson et al. I) and SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et aL, Senior party) to the counts:
COUNT 1:
- claim 1 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al HI), with the following corresponding claims:
SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI): claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-17, 19, 22, 27, 29-37 and 39-53
SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II): claims 30-32, 34-41, 44^6, 48, 51, 56, 58-66, 68 and 69
PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I): claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-19 and 22-29
SN 09/411,205 (Ginter etal.): claims91-93, 95-102, 105-109, 112-122, 124-131, 134-138 and 141-148
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI) to Count 1 above.
Independent claim 1 is Count 1 .
Independent claim 10 provides for the "mirror" of the method of Count 1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for
packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user, while this claim provides for
the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control elements), which would have been an
obvious consequence of the method of Count 1 .
Serial No, 09/411205
Art Unit 2125
- page 2-
Independent claim 16 is the apparatus version of Count 1.
Independent claim 19 is the apparatus version of claim 10, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above.
Independent claims 27 and 35 provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data
objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose
of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared data environment, for example.
Independent claims 36, 41, 43 and 48, and claims 37, 42, 44 and 50, are similar to the method of Count 1
except that various steps have been omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its function in a
combination where remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 2 adds the limitation that the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would
have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because
encrypting control data was well-known to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least
by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13).
Claims 3, 5, 17, 39 and 52 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method
of Count 1, which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant
invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments.
Claims 6, 8, 33, 40 and 49 additionally provide for the "mirror'* of the method of Count 1 (i.e.; Count 1
provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user, while these
listed claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control elements),
which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1 .
Claim 7 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1 , which would have been an
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Internet
environment, for example.
Claims 9, 15, 22, 32 and 34 additionally provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects (i.e.; the
sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1 , wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-
known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared data environment, for
example.
Claims 11 and 12 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i.e.;
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared
data control.
Serial No, 09/411,205
Art Unit 2125
' page 3-
Claims 29 and 3 1 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements).
Claim 30 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made.
Claims 45-47, 51 and 53 add limitations concerning various types of data enclosed in (i.e.; the contents of)
the packages of the method of Count 1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill
in the art, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments.
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II) to Count 1 above.
Independent claims 30, 39, 56, 64 and 65, and claims 31 and 66, include all the limitations of the method
of Count 1, while adding the limitation that the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification
would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because
encrypting control data was well-known to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least
by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13).
Independent claim 45 is the apparatus version of claim 30, similar to the method of Coimt 1 as noted above.
Independent claim 48 is the apparatus version of claim 39, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above.
Claims 32, 34, 46 and 68 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method
of Count 1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
instant invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution
envirormients.
Claims 35, 37, 62 and 69, and additionally claims 39 and 48, provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count
1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user,
while these listed claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1.
Claim 36 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Intemet
environment, for example.
Serial No, 09/411205
Art Unit 2125
- P<^ge 4 -
Claims 38, 44, 5 1, 61 and 63, and additionally claims 56 and 64, provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the
data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious
variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared
data environment, for example.
Claims 40 and 41 provide additional limitations conceming updating of usage control elements (i.e.;
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared
data control.
Claims 58 and 60 add limitations conceming plural objects being grouped within a package of the method
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements).
Claim 59 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made.
Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 1 above.
Independent claims 1, 10, 22 and 29, and claim 2, include all the limitations of the method of Count 1, while
adding two limitations. The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As
presented above, with regard to Benson et al. n, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the
second added limitation provides that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have
been inherent to any data distribution environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of
the data, which would not be possible without some form of storage.
Independent claim 16 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 1, similar to Count 1 as noted above.
Independent claim 1 8 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 10, similar to Count 1 as noted above.
Claims 3, 5 and 17 add limitations conceming various types of control data included in the method of Count
1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant
^ invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution envirormients.
Claims 6, 8 and 27, and additionally claims 10 and 18, provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count 1
(i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user,
while these hsted claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1.
Serial No. 09/411,205
Art Unit 2125
' page 5-
Claim 7 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Intemet
environment, for example.
Claims 9, 15, 19, 26 and 28, and additionally claims 22 and 29, provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the
data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious
variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared
data environment, for example.
Claims 11 and 12 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i.e.;
decrementing number of uses), which would have been intplementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared
data control.
Claims 23 and 25 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements).
Claim 24 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count I is across a
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made.
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 1 above.
Claims 91-93, 95-102, 105-109 and 112-119 are identical to claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-19 and 22-29 of PN
5845281 (Benson et al. I) above. Accordingly, the following applies:
Independent claims 9 1 , 1 00, 1 1 2 and 1 1 9, and claim 92, include all the limitations of the method of Count
1, while adding two limitations. The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted.
As presented above, with regard to Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally,
the second added limitation provides that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have
been inherent to any data distribution environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of
the data, which would not be possible witiiout some form of storage.
Independent claim 106 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 91, similar to Count I as noted above.
Independent claim 108 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 100, similar to Count 1 as noted
above.
Serial No, 09/411,205
Art Unit 2125
- page 6 -
Claim 120 is substantially similar to the method of Coxmt 1, except that equivalent language from the
specification of Ginter et al has been used.
Claim 135 is the apparatus version of claim 120, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above.
Claims 93, 95 and 107 add limitations conceming various types of control data included in the method of
Count 1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant
invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments.
Corresponding claims 121, 122, 124 and 136 use the equivalent language noted above.
Claims 96, 98 and 1 1 7, and additionally claims 1 00 and 1 08, provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count
1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user,
while these Hsted claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1 . Corresponding claims 125,
127, 129, 137 and 146 use the equivalent language noted above.
Claim 97 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Internet
environment, for example. Corresponding claim 126 uses the equivalent language noted above.
Claims 99, 105, 109, 1 16 and 118, and additionally claims 1 12 and 1 19, provide for repeated (re)-packaging
of the data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Coimt 1, wherein such would have been an
obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a
shared data environment, for example. Corresponding claims 128, 134, 138, 141, 145, 147 and 148 use the
equivalent language noted above.
Claims 101 and 102 provide additional limitations conceming updating of usage control elements (i.e.;
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared
data control. Corresponding claims 130 and 131 use the equivalent language noted above.
Claims 1 13 and 1 15 add limitations conceming plural objects being grouped within a package of the method
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements). Corresponding claims 142 and 144 use the
equivalent language noted above.
Claim 1 14 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made.
Corresponding claim 143 uses the equivalent language noted above.
Serial No. 09/41 1205 - page 7 -
Art Unit 2125
COUNT 2:
- claim 4 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI), with the following coiresponding claims:
SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI): claims 4, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 28 and 38
SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II): claims 33, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 57 and 67
PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I): claims 4, 13 and 14
SN 09/41 1,205 (Ginter et al.): claims 94, 103, 104, 123, 132 and 133
** Since the claims of this count are dependent upon the claims of Count 1, the following analysis tracks Count 1
precisely, with regard to the relationship between the claims in Benson et al. I, n and IE. The rationales have been
repeated here, with appropriate claim numbering.
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. m) to Count 2 above.
Dependent claim 4 is Count 2,
Dependent claim 13 is substantially similar to Count 2, except that it depends from parent claim 10, which
differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent Count 1 was provided
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1.
Dependent claims 14 and 28 add the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data,
which is an inherent purpose of using control data.
Dependent claim 18 is the apparatus version of claim 4, similar to the method of Count 2 as noted above.
Dependent claim 20 is the apparatus version of claim 13, similar to the method of Coimt 2 as noted above.
Dependent claim 21 adds the limitation that the encryption uses a specific type of algorithm, which was a
well-known type of algorithm at the time the instant invention was made. As admitted by Applicant, at page 10 of
the instant specification, it was well-known in the art to use "any appropriate, commercially available [encryption]
module."
Dependent claim 38 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that it depends from parent
claim 36, which differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, various steps of storing and/or
concatenating are omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its fimction in a combination where
the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Serial No. 09/41 L205
Art Unit 2125
- page 8 -
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al, II) to Count 2 above.
Dq)endent claim 33 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 1, while adding the limitation that
the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would have been obvious, to one having
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because encrypting control data was well-known
to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at
least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13).
Dependent claim 42 is substantially similar to Count 2, except that it depends from parent claim 39, which
diflFers from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent Count 1 was provided
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1 .
Dependent claims 43 and 57 add the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data,
which is an inherent purpose of using control data.
Dependent claim 47 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 33, similar to Count 2 as noted above.
Dependent claim 49 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 42, similar to Count 2 as noted above.
Dependent claim 50 adds the limitation that the encryption uses a specific type of algorithm, which was a
well-known type of algorithm at the time the instant invention was made. As admitted by Applicant, at page 10 of
the instant specification, it was well-known in the art to use "any appropriate, commercially available [encryption]
module."
Dependent claim 67 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that it depends from parent
claim 65 which differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, various steps of storing and/or concatenating
are omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining
elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 2 above.
Dependent claim 4 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations. The
first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard to
Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. AdditionaUy, the second added limitation provides
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible
without some form of storage.
Dependent claim 13 is substantially similar to Count 2, except that it depends from parent claim 10, which
differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parrat Count 1 was provided
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1 .
Serial No. 09/411205
Art Unit 2125
- page 9 -
Dependent claim 14 adds the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, which
is an inherent purpose of using control data.
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 2 above.
Dependent claims 94, 103 and 104 are identical to claims 4, 13 and 14 of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I)
above. Accordingly, the following applies:
Dependent claim 94 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations. The
first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard to
Benson et al. II, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the second added limitation provides
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible
without some form of storage, is identical to Count 2.
Dependent claim 123 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that equivalent language fi-om
the specification of Ginter et al. has been used. ?
Dependent claim 103 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that it dep'ends from parent
claim 100, which differs from parent Count 2 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent
Count 2 was provided for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 2.
Corresponding claim 132 uses the equivalent language noted above.
Dependent claim 104 adds the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, which
is an inherent purpose of using control data. Corresponding claim 133 uses the equivalent language noted above.
COUNT 3:
^l^e e . - claim of SN 09/321 ,386 (Benson et al. m), with the following corresponding claims:
^ /^'^ SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. m): claims 23 and 24
SN 09/1 64,606 (Benson et al. A): claims 52, 53 and 55
PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I): claims 20 and 21
SN 09/4 11, 205 (Ginter et al.): claims 1 10, 1 1 1, 139 and 140
** Again, although these claims are independent of the claims in Count 1, the following analysis still tracks Counts
1 and 2 precisely, with regard to the relationship between the claims in Benson et al. I, U and HI. The rationales have
been repeated here, with appropriate claim numbering.
Serial No, 09/411,205
Art Unit 2125
- page 10 -
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321^86 (Benson et al. III) to Count 3 above.
Independent claim 23 is Count 3.
Claim 24 adds a limitation concerning various types of data enclosed in the packages of the method of Count
3, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a consequence of
implementation in a particular data sharing environment.
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. IT) to Count 3 above.
Independent claim 52 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 3, while adding the limitation that
the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would have been obvious, to one having
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because encrypting control data was well-known
to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at
least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13).
Claim 53 adds a limitation concerning various types of data enclosed in the packages of the method of Count
3, all of which would have been obvious choices of design, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a consequence
of implementation in a particular environment.
Claim 55 additionally provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of ttie method of Count 3,
wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and
accessibility of the data objects in a shared data environment, for example.
Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 3 above.
Independent claim 20 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 3, while adding two limitations.
The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard
to Benson et al n, such a modification would have been obvious. AdditionaDy, the second added limitation provides
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible
without some form of storage.
Claim 21 additionally provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of the method of Count 3,
wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and
accessibility of the data objects in a shared data envirormient, for example.
Serial No. 09/411205
Art Unit 2125
-page 11 -
Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 3 above.
Claims 1 10 and 1 1 1 are identical to claims 20 and 21 of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) above. Accordingly,
the following applies:
Independent claim 1 10 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations.
The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard
to Benson et al. H such a modification would have been obvious. AdditionaUy, the second added limitation provides
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible
without some form of storage.
Independent claim 139 is substantially similar to the method of Count 3, except that equivalent language from
the specification of Ginter et al. has been used.
Claim 1 1 1 provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of the method of Count 3, wherein such
would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data
objects in a shared data environment, for example. Corresponding claim 140 uses the equivalent language noted
above.
** NOTE : claim 54 of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II) and claims 25 and 26 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. TSS)
do not have corresponding interfering claims in SN 09/41 1,205 (Ginter et al.).
Serial No. 09/411.205
Art Unit 2125
Correlation of claims in application copied from PN 5845281 to claims in patent:
Appl. S.N. 09/41 1 205 fGinter et al.^ PN 5845281 (Benson et al. D
91
1
92
2
93
3
94
4
95
5
96
6
97
7
98
8
99
9
100
10
101
11
102
12
103
13
104
14
105
15
106
16
107
17
108
18
109
19
110
20
111
21
112
22
113
23
114
24
115
25
116
26
117
27
118
28
119
29
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11